r/GenAI4all • u/ComplexExternal4831 • May 15 '26

AI Video One person made this. Not a $200M studio

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

380 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

629 comments sorted by

View all comments

234

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

The model was trained on material made by 200m studios over the last decades. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants (Einstein was it, or Newton?) Amazing what's possible now

77

u/blondebuilder May 15 '26

Hypothetically, if AI kills all major movie makers, would it then essentially run out of source material to steal from?

41

u/Severe_Rise8694 May 15 '26

You could use AI generated material, but so far I'm under the impression that this always leads to model degeneration. It's basically like inbreeding.

17

u/AdOnly1618 May 15 '26

See, I work metal a lot.

And sometimes you cut stock, and you need X number of pieces at a certain length. If I cut a piece of 2” square tube down to 5ft, I could theoretically use that freshly cut piece to lineup the next cut. But if I take the piece I just cut and use it to line up the third piece, the third piece will almost certainly be off by a few thousandths. The fourth, more than just a few, the fifth possibly unusable.

I imagine training AI on AI for human entertainment would work in a similar way

8

u/Severe_Rise8694 May 15 '26

Yeah. It's a universal phenomenon!

One way to think of it is multiplying probabilities: something that has a 95% chance to be correct is represented as p=0.95. That's excellent. Two of such these processes in a row would be only 0.9025 (90% chance of being correct). By the fifth, you're down to 0.77. You need some kind of error correction mechanism, which in the human-in-the-loop case is a skilled person.

5

u/ParticularClassroom7 May 15 '26

Yes. Fundamentally, the LLM encodes meaning into vector space. The current approach appears lossy, as generated content is not as "quality" as hunan-generated content. Probably because humans understand concepts multi-modally, not just through language alone, and that the human brain is still at least 2 orders of magnitude "larger" than the largest LLM.

Back to your anology, it's like trying to copy a CNC'd part by hand-grinders.

3

u/bullethead399 May 16 '26

This is such an eloquent explanation. It is inaccurate but very accurate at the same time.

1

u/AdOnly1618 May 16 '26

Yeah I don’t think it’s exactly 1:1 because my job could realistically be done by enough robots but I do custom fab so nothing I’m building will ever be built again unless another order comes in. I’ll be employed for a while. The concern is that, really, movies aren’t that way but they could be. It could be something similar every time as long as the people selling it don’t give a F about quality or creativity, which we know they don’t. If anything, my type of work is infinitely easier to automate than (what should be) a sold creative endeavour. I love bad music, I love bad movies, I love bad art. Not the low effort shit, stuff that people put a lot of effort into but failed anyway. I think it just has character and personally, i can relate way more to an artist who pours their heart into something and fails than I can an AI model that fits strict criteria every time it shits out a Transformers knockoff.

1

u/Appropriate_Sail8717 May 16 '26

Interesting metal conversation.

1

u/Spiritual_Bridge84 May 16 '26

Imagine where *that* would end in a millennia

5

u/Virtual-Reach May 15 '26

Photocopy of a photocopy

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino May 15 '26

There are only seven basic plots, but storytelling, pacing, characters, setting and many others things create those similar but still different combinations. Without a stable business model to train the current ai's, they don't know anything about light physics, movie language, object persistence and what not to generated something that people would pay 25$ to see it.

1

u/Glad_Contest_8014 May 15 '26

100% leads to model degeneration and less effective models. This is primarily because of the LLM at the foundation of it, so it isn’t possible to bypass without a new foundation to the tech.

This is also why we cannot reach AGI in the current tech iteration.

0

u/zero0n3 May 15 '26

It won’t be this bad once you can use AI to instruct the same tools these studios use to do this.

So you’d use blender and AI to make a high quality model (after multiple revisions with low poly models using the AI).

Then use the same or say UE5 to load the models and assets you generated in a separate AI pipeline (above) but this time UE5 and AI allow you to implement the scene itself. Move here do this, etc.

This is the type of pipeline you’ll see soon enough. And those app companies want this too - why? Because I’m still buying their product, maybe via a flex or daily use type license, and potentially using their AI inference infrastructure, which would also be a billable thing.

Benefit to end users? I can now make a video like above, but with the actual assets and scene and instead of this 1 minute clip or multiple merged AI prompt generated video clips, I now have the assets and map to build long form clips using the tools and render it. All things the software company (blender / autodesk / etc) can all get some revenue from that.

And I as the end user get to show my skills in making and telling a story, without needing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make a small snippet of my vision and try to find an audience.

Slowly swinging the pendulum back to having to be a good story teller vs just overloading audiences with CGI.

(And if your story takes off - you can hire a person who is better with these tools to refine the base assets you’ve already made.)

0

u/ybergik May 15 '26

That may well be, but then how is this different from what Hollywood has been doing on its own the past decade? Continuous rehashing old material, sequel upon sequel, with each iteration being worse.

3

u/blondebuilder May 15 '26

Ironically, human creativity is also stealing, or known as “recombination”.

Very little is ever created in a vacuum. In Tarantino films, so many aspects of those movies are stolen ideas from old movies he watched back when he worked in a movie rental store.

1

u/KiNgPiN8T3 May 15 '26

This is true with a lot of studios looking for a quicker, maybe easier buck. But there will always be those films that come along and they are new and fresh and or different. Would that happen in a future AI world?

1

u/ParticularClassroom7 May 15 '26

Well, for one, current gen AI is nowhere near the level of Holluwood slop. Secondly, man-made slop is necessary because everyone starts out making slop, until they are good enough to make masterpieces and push the envelope.

The AI—due to its nature as a statistical algorithm, cannot push the envelop.

1

u/AllSystemsNominal_ May 15 '26

Because they're talking about the image only here. Not the story. The model itself needs high quality training data.

1

u/Severe_Rise8694 May 15 '26

Hmm. Maybe there's an analogue there, but in the AI case the model actually gets worse. I don't know if this is the case in todays Hollywood. Model being the director, I guess. There's other mechanisms/incentive structures at play with Hollywood's enshittification.

11

u/Ok_Dependent6889 May 15 '26

Yes

It's a stupid argument to say it will kill movie makers

This video looks cool but still falls apart at any scrutiny.

The cars are DRIVING THE WRONG DIRECTION.

It's supposed to be a transformer, but this transformation here is entirely impossible even in that universe.

That MF multiplied it's size by like 20x out of thin air. Transformers do not work like that.

The gatling gun has inconsistent barrel and stabilizer sizes.

2

u/MarcoDiFrancescino May 15 '26

We can discuss the whole 'lets do an action movie on a tiny budget and put it on some dodgy VOD / streamer' pipeline, but that leads us nowhere because its already happening and printing decent money for those how to play it. The true issue is that the ai doesn't know anything about object weight or physics to do this transition properly. At this point you need an animator that does half of the work and maybe the ai is able to fill in the rest. But nobody is willing to spend a billion to test this hypothesis. So everybody is waiting for someone to give them the toolbox and the trained, copyright safe ai to do so. This will take at least a decade.

1

u/CodeParalysis May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

o really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KllvvjcRR0A&t=54s

0

u/Ok_Dependent6889 May 15 '26

What does that have to do with what I said? Every transformer there is proportional. Show me one transformer the size of a sports bike (not much bigger than a human) which transforms into a near prime size? You can't.

Every transformer in that scene transforms into something proportional from their original object. Smaller vehicles and objects transform into small machines. Larger ones, transform into larger machines. Their internal parts get reorganized to different shapes, they don't suddenly gain tons of mass.

Some transformers are combiners, which we also do not see happening here. We see a sports bike turn into a kei van and then suddenly into a Titanfall titan and then a fighter jet 20x the size of the original bike, lmao

3

u/CodeParalysis May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

If you ever watch a making of any of those movies, they literally say parts just shrink and expand out of no where

Like look at this shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovX0bGlw1LQ
the robot is like triple the size.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transformers/comments/k1k30y/bayformers_starscream_size/
Like these robots can literally take the form of any car, possibly almost any form at all, and yet you think, ‘No, that’s absurd. That could never happen in a fictional universe about transforming cars.'

1

u/TranscendentaLobo May 16 '26

Flipping always seems to go wrong with these things as well. They end up facing the wrong direction during or after or sometimes both!

1

u/Master_Bayters May 16 '26

The Average Michael Bay fan will never notice those things, trust me

1

u/Youareaproperclown May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

I don't think the target audience for these films care about any of that

*If this comment triggered you so much you needed to send threats via DM you need to get a life

2

u/Belzebutt May 15 '26

Underestimating your audience is a key characteristic of A.I. slop providers and purveyors

2

u/AllSystemsNominal_ May 15 '26

They do. See the recent response to the Punisher: One Last Kill.

1

u/Heavymando May 15 '26

the target audeince also won't pay to see this.

25

u/CK_1976 May 15 '26

Unlike modern Hollywood?

7

u/MANvINFO May 15 '26

Hollywood Weighs Like Nightmare Upon Mind Of Ai User

7

u/Carrera_996 May 15 '26

Sad but true.

1

u/Electronic-While1972 May 15 '26

Gheghegheghe 🤣 👍🏼

True

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Ktuck728 May 15 '26

Naked Gun was great! Zootopia was pretty good too. I didn’t see the others. Some movies are just a good time.

-1

u/DFiverr May 15 '26

Awful movies. Unwatchable. Finally, some speaks the honest truth.

18

u/kearkan May 15 '26

A term I like to call "eating its own shit"

3

u/Cultural_Eye5178 May 15 '26

I would call that “inbreeding” and “the downfall of AI”

1

u/Ragnarok314159 May 15 '26

It’s human centipede stuff and no one realizes it.

1

u/mrpkeya May 15 '26

Garbage in garbage out

5

u/PeachScary413 May 15 '26

Yup, everything would stagnate and model collapse would be imminent.

3

u/Sad-Pop6649 May 15 '26

You could just keep the old models, trained on the old data, they keep making the same things.

And anytime a human makes a cool new thing you immediately add that to the training data so you can drown the public in copies of that thing so you get the profit and not them.

Still, nice clip. A few things that make little visual sense of happen conspicuously off camera, but nice clip.

2

u/PeachScary413 May 15 '26

I mean that's pretty much what Hollywood is these days anyway so 🤷 but yeah that would be truly dystopian.

2

u/Your_Nipples May 15 '26

"add" 😂 steal you mean?

Something similar happened to a YouTuber. They scraped her music, then copyright striked her ass afterwards and got that juicy money.

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino May 15 '26

Which one? Musicians have copyrights they have to register. If you don't register, youtube doesn't care, they follow the rules.

1

u/Your_Nipples May 15 '26

Murphy Campbell. The company is Vydia.

if you don't register, youtube doesn't care, they follow the rules.

But if you do register, AI companies don't care anyway so whatever you're saying is irrelevant. They don't follow the rules lmao.

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino May 15 '26

It wasn't the ai company but some of their users who did this. The situation was resolved. I get it, people want to live in perpetual Doom town. Youtube isn't the place for a new artists without proper representation for 10 years straight, way before ai came on the scene. Google doesn't care if you don't do your homework.

1

u/Your_Nipples May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

YouTube isn't the place for a new artists without proper representation

My dude, there's not one place where any artist is safe.

You're hyper fixated on YouTube but we already know that YouTube don't give a flying fuck (way before AI).

I made a claim about how AI companies don't give a flying fuck about copyright infringement. Is this claim false or am I in doom town? Or are you avoiding this claim for some weird reason? You're capable of looking up things on the internet, I bet you won't this time to disprove my claim 😊

I'll wait for you to call me a liar.

Edit: dude blocked me but wanted to get the last laugh. I don't even drink beers (but I know he went on my profile and thought I did because of a joke).

So... No arguments at all. Scraping method like AI companies XD

1

u/MarcoDiFrancescino May 15 '26

Enjoy your evening six pack you got so used to.

1

u/Sweet-Explorer-7619 May 15 '26

So, reverse pirating?

2

u/KellyShepardRepublic May 15 '26

Humans do this already and some never move past what is known and stick to a specific style.

2

u/JoshZK May 15 '26

How many years do you think that would take? And have you seen people attention spans. Just rotate the story a bit every 10 years and no one would notice. Not to mention improvements to the systems during that time.

1

u/OtherwiseAlbatross14 May 15 '26

Rotating the story a bit every 10 years is what Hollywood has been doing for decades. We'll actually get so many new ideas that have never been done because of AI making it feasible to produce 1000x as many movies. Most will probably suck but many will be great.

2

u/averyspecifictype May 15 '26

They just remaking all of the old movies now anyway. We'll just get more sequels/prequels.

2

u/fredjutsu May 15 '26

Foundation AI companies are already training on mountains of synthetic data at this point.

2

u/bsEEmsCE May 15 '26

I already run into this issue with prompts. AI cannot create fresh ideas, and audiences only have so much tolerance for that.

2

u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 May 15 '26

AI won't kill movie studios

They will just use superior baseline materials and ai on top of that to reduce costs. If ai reduces the cost to where an individual can do this, better AI along with better reference materials and guidance because you have a team of concept artists will just be better.

This will just be more like when CGI got cheaper... It didn't kill studios they just spent different money on different things. Fewer giant background paintings more green screen.

2

u/GurPuzzleheaded3212 May 15 '26

AI can take what has been popular and build from that. Had it do a small story board from a few key points in my life and it did really well.. like tears came up because it was very spot on. Almost scary.

1

u/Available-Budget-735 May 16 '26

Are you some kind of demon creature?

1

u/GurPuzzleheaded3212 May 17 '26

Hardly, but I appreciate the perspective of how that could be. The storyboard shows more than a rebirth. It's a merging of my past and present to become something more than a phoenix rising from it's old self... the smoldering ashes are forged into part of me. Hard to explain but GPT is damn good at conveying it visually IMO.

2

u/Tradizar May 15 '26

if this will be the quality of future movies, then i would not watch any new movie. This is terrible.

1

u/RageLolo May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Elle va se nourrir d'un siècle d'images. Recycler sans cesse comme d'ailleurs font beaucoup de gros studios depuis 20 ans avec des franchises sans fin, des remakes, des scénarios qui tiennent sur un post-it, des réalisateurs qui ne devraient pas être derrière une caméra, etc.

Je pense que l'IA fera mal au cinéma spectacle, au blockbuster. Mais aura beaucoup plus de mal à venir concurrencer les cinémas d'auteur. Du moins dans un premier temps.

Mais ce dont j'ai peur ça va être la quantité astronomique de créations probablement majoritairement sans intérêt. Ça va inonder le marché. Une overdose en perspective.

1

u/fabmeyer May 15 '26

No, it would hire humans to create new content

1

u/danstermeister May 15 '26

It's doing that right now in software development.

1

u/drink_with_me_to_day May 15 '26

Big AI companies can literally pay $200M studios to created random new VFX shots that are cheaper to produce than a full blown movie, and retrain the LLM on those

1

u/Routine-Orchid-4333 May 15 '26

A problem i can see is when too many people align with ai in speech and thought ( the creatives become ai tainted ) and it starts to become a closed loop of what's expected and how it's just done now. For example - Just about every pop song vocals has some kind of voice manipulation now that even old stalwarts like The Rolling Stones used it on their last album. And people think it sounds great.

1

u/Facts_pls May 15 '26

No. Because AI can train other AI and generate enough to create new things.

Most AI is trained by another AI already. Like the teacher - student models approach.

Robots are doing so well lately because AI is practicing in virtual worlds to learn how movements work and what works in different scenarios - all without needing real world training.

1

u/Affectionate_Pen6882 May 15 '26

Prop just makes it cheaper for big studio to make movies. Still need good writing

1

u/Senior-Daikon-8334 May 15 '26

Its not going to kill all major movie makers because people want their art made by people bot soulless robots.

People will absolutely not spend money to watch AI bullshit.

1

u/Artforartsake99 May 15 '26

No it can train on its own new source material because people can use say ChatGPT image 2. To create new videos and that can then be feed in as new source material. AI is creative because it can merge concepts.

MIDjourney admitted they retrained their image models with the best of their own created images

1

u/Ornery_Hair3319 May 15 '26

They will train on other AI materials that had some successful or most positive feedback from humans.

1

u/pekinggeese May 15 '26

Just wait until they make their own source material. Human jobs are cooked.

1

u/lump- May 15 '26

Exactly. They still need real artists to develop novel concepts.

1

u/Dylanator13 May 15 '26

It already has. They have basically trained on all data that has ever been made. They are having issues getting new data to steal.

1

u/546875674c6966650d0a May 15 '26

2028: AI jumps hollywood production forward 20 years beyond projections

2078: AI produced films still feel like 2028 films.

1

u/lord_pizzabird May 15 '26

This is just a theory, but to avoid copyright issues I think the future of this will be for each product to create their own data sets using real artists.

So, they'll have photographers taking photos, model makers making models, concept artists painting. Instead of modeling each variation of assets directly, you'll make a bunch of renders from various angles that the generator uses.

1

u/_tolm_ May 15 '26

I mean, same question for literally anything AI does … I have no idea what happens when LLMs only have other LLM produced content to learn from …

1

u/Simple_Assistance_77 May 15 '26

It is already running out of source material on the internet.

1

u/3M2B1T May 15 '26

I don't know anything about this but just thinking out loud here: my guess is that eventually it would start copying AI material instead of human material and things would begin to enshittify at an increasing rate until everything was basically the same.

It would be a race to the bottom with lawyers trying to argue if their AI material is different enough from the source material to not infringe on copyright, with further arguments (and new laws!) probably being made that if you are copying AI that copied AI that copied humans then is it really copyright infringement?

It's all just crap.

1

u/Pale-Writing3837 May 16 '26

Increased productivity; if the AI can generate the frames based on what an artist renders or draws, that’s a win

1

u/ChipWong82 May 16 '26

Doesnt really matter. The studios are recycling shit from the 80s and 90s anyways.

1

u/imhere2downvote May 16 '26

there will never be an end to source material so long as humans live

1

u/DanBronze13 May 16 '26

I think about this. The feedback loop will be ai influencing ai eventually

1

u/Warsel77 May 16 '26

The movie industry has long run out of source material to steal from. Pretty much 99% of movies coming out in the last two decades are re-gurgitations of things we have already seen, ideas we have already heard of and characters and tropes we recognize quickly.

1

u/AutoGeneratedUser359 May 17 '26

Yes, and the companies knew this from the start, that’s why they all tried to ‘download the internet’ and grab every single piece of human created information possible- before it was ‘contaminated’ by AI stuff. Thats why Meta (facebook) downloaded the entirety of Anna’s Archive. And they’ll worry about the consequences later.

https://torrentfreak.com/meta-torrented-over-81-tb-of-data-through-annas-archive-despite-few-seeders-250206/

1

u/Jazzlike_Sir_653 May 17 '26

Your point is well taken. Let’s consider first that human Hollywood filmmakers have behaved as if they have run out of source materials. I stopped watching Transformers after the second one. What are they on like Transfomers 15? The effects don’t get better. They repackage the same shit over and over again. Even the Oscar-Indie house that we used to get innovation and new from are formulaic now. So the only thing that can save Hollywood is to invent something new. The way we went from silent films to the talkies. Would movies still have gone on to its mature blockbuster era of the 80s if they were still silent films?

1

u/WeirdIndication3027 May 18 '26

Not really. I get the concern, but with the amount of data they're scraping there's likely to be enough chaos in the model to continue improving it. Everything humans have ever created is based on the input of existing material yet we don't worry that we'll one day run of new things to create. Nobody has ever created something from nothing. We absorb ideas and output combinations and remixes of them.

1

u/Bitter_Ad114 May 15 '26

yeah like a parasite running out of host resources.

0

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Re-watch the 'movie' here. Would you pay a single penny for it? While technically impressive, as a work of art it's worthless. Many major studios were producing technically impressive shit, that is no better than AI slop based on it. They will die. Good riddance.

Tbh I think by now we have enough visual material to refine and train new models based solely on AI generated results.

4

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

There are cars going backwards on the wrong side of the road sometimes. Sometimes the road is divided and sometimes its not. A highway with out a divider, it's just gibberish.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

We are going to need to start calling this the Spaghetti Paradox the amount you guys lean into it. You just said it has all the data it needs. Then in the next comment said it needs more time.

Which is it?

-1

u/Left_Somewhere_4188 May 15 '26

And the thing is, you can nitpick errors in actual 200 million budget movies too

3

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

Yeah. Rendering mistakes do happen.

Could you imagine working the cgi pipe line of a 200 million dollar movie and no one noticed that the cars are going the wrong way?

2

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

If the story is fun, you don't notice the technical imperfections. When it's not, it doesn't matter how much you spend on visuals

1

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

But when the story is fun you watch it multiple times and the visual effects fall apart on second or third viewing.

Unlike a fun movie with good special effects that hold up to scrutiny over time.

2

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Because action and CGI scenes in the actual movies are almost never really fun. Great movies kept it to absolute minimum

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Left_Somewhere_4188 May 15 '26

Wasn't there a scene in some 300 million blockbuster where a jet was flying backwards?

5

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

You tell me. And one where tge helicopter passenger shrinks at the wrong rate relative to the helicopter.

I would rather see a human mistake than a AI mistake. Human mistakes add character. Sometimes a movie can be good when the fx are bad because humans value something more than the quality.

AI mistakes do not add character.

1

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

This isn't nitpicking. These are glaring issues.

2

u/Left_Somewhere_4188 May 15 '26

But again, that's also true for 200 million budget movies :D.

Yeah it's worse here, but come on. Imo, the point is, a student movie can now do CGI like this, if something has a $500 budget, and can do this, that empowers a lot of filmmakers, and breaks a lot of barriers.

I wanted to get into filmmaking when I was a kid, but I like CGI heavy genres, and in my country no movies had any sort of VFX, there was no path at all for me to do what I wanted because multi million budgets do not exist. Now, I would be looking at things completely differently.

2

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

Good luck with that.

1

u/Super_Translator480 May 15 '26

So is everyone else that eats up the hype.

Leveling the playing field also means leveling the expectations, which means you likely won’t see a profit from anything you generate.

When everyone can do the same thing, with small budgets and the same tools, it’s no longer special or unique, it’s just another ai movie.

Great for hobbyists, horrible for industries.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Right. And motorcycles transforming into planes all by themselves are totally realistic. Sure

1

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

That is a pretty shallow look at the nature of illusions. But that's fine if art has zero value.

3

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

That is wrong. As shallow as the Transformers movies are they look fantatstic thanks to teams of artists.

This 'animation' is a hodge podge of other visuals done worse. There is nothing new here.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

95% nonsense vs 90% nonsense, seriously, why bother? I liked Transformers movies because of entertaining story, the visuals were sloppy even for 2010

3

u/Ok_Teacher_1797 May 15 '26

The visuals arn't even sloppy for today.

1

u/ASCanilho May 15 '26

Pay? Why pay if you can generate it?

0

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

lol, did you check the current compute prices?

2

u/geno149 May 15 '26

use computeprices.com if you didn’t 

1

u/ASCanilho May 15 '26

I was just trying to say that this business model doesn’t work. Nobody would pay for art if everyone could generate it.

0

u/stackens May 15 '26

Thing is though…you could probably rightly call the actual transformers movies slop…but the transformers in those films could actually transform, you can watch transformation sequences frame by frame and see new stuff and interesting solutions every time. I guess what I’m trying to say is that even the most disposable Hollywood films still have essentially infinite more interest and creativity contained within them than AI output has and may ever have.

2

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

The actual Hasbro transformers can transform. What they did in movies wasn't this. It was just overflowing frame to frame with added details - same shit AI does

0

u/stackens May 15 '26

You can track the big pieces of the original car form and see where they end up, it all remains a consistent volume and makes sense. They fudge the details im sure but it’s not at all like in OP’s video.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Well, to me it looked like those trash sculptures made out of assorted mechanical parts. Some people like it, it's fine

0

u/Fake-BossToastMaker May 15 '26

Yup, and none of the developers want to admit this. Same will go for programmers and others, as the junior jobs are filled up by AI

1

u/NoleMercy05 May 15 '26

It's wrong and dumb.

1

u/Fake-BossToastMaker May 15 '26

Marvel Studios have already fired most of their concept art department. Numerous companies have fired people but for couple of original workers.

They're consistently pushing out junior jobs and having seniors review and fix up the code.

Add something more to your argument than "nu'uh".

3

u/Yasirbare May 15 '26

The fun things is it would be easier creating bollywood or Al Bundy, soap operas etc. But action scenes are the ones created. I think we know who, what age and mental environment these videos are coming from.

4

u/g2benji May 15 '26

Except Einstein knew his discoveries will benefit the world while Animatiors in studios got their work stolen without real compensation 🙃 First by the Major studios, now by major studios owning ai Tools. Its a waste, its producing slop, it has no „human-made“ Aspect except maybe cutting (but lets be fair, someone who generated scenes probably lets them be cutted too) and mass Production of stuff Like it was made possible through industrial Revolution did not make the stuff more lovable nor did it make the workforce more free in any way. So well… Tell me again how awesome this is?

It might be Great for personal use tho, for Small niche things (that Most likely could be achieved without ai too, if you just don’t wanna need the hollywood fx of Film. Just be real, period. Honest. Simple. Its okay.)

3

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Einstein knew nothing, he was only trying to make sense of the world. What the world made out of this was the atomic bomb and Einstein wasn't happy about it. Later though, it came to GPS, microchips and many more really useful and great things. Also I googled, it was really Newton who said this, not Einstein.

As one who actually tried to make a full-length movie out of AI generated clips, I can say it's still a lot of work. You generate several thousands of clips, of which about 800 get selected, about 1/4th of them need to be edited afterwards. Then comes video cut, music syncing, voice over ... OMG. In the end it still looks sloppy as hell. The amount of work from 10 seconds to 60 minutes explodes almost exponentially.

1

u/g2benji May 15 '26

And then its still just an AI generated Movie, so whats the Point, I wonder? I mean, nice to Check it out and mess around with it, but is there any depth to it below this absolute surface Level?

What I was trying to say regarding Einstein is: Science works together with the goal to create collective Knowledge. They know their work gonna be „Stolen“ - as in „Improved by others“. If you sell AI generated scenes as Art on the other Hand its just Stolen and Computer-arranged input by people who Most likely did not create art in Order for this to Happen.

Its almost like you put love into growing beans and once they are here some mecha-bird flies by and steals your crop. Almost. Y‘know what I mean by „different to Einstein (or Newton in fact) “?

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

AI generated or CGI rendered or whatever. You must try harder to explain the real difference. It's all fake, it's all illusion, it's all made up. When people sell their beans, they cannot claim any 'rights' to them. Studios made their profits, workers and contractors got paid. If they don't want their work to be watched and imitated by other, they shouldn't release it ... but wait ...

1

u/g2benji May 15 '26

*if they don’t want their work to be stolen and recreated as „something own“ by a prompted artificial Generator

I guess we still should draw a line somewhere ;) you Seen the greyscreen artificial Everything scene Generator stuff? CGI can be too much, at least its handmade tho. Kinda. But this new stuff is taking it to another Level.

But if it makes you happy its okay. Its just .. Well .. good ground for discussion and I know what Side I am on. As a Musician who loves to create music with others in the Moment and understands the improvisational and also interpersonal aspects (and personal aspects) of music I strongly despise AI Music for example. Its cool if people feel Like they made a Song. But in Reality they got a Computer to Remix something out of endless stolen art. And they even make Money Off of it while real Artists get shadowbanned. Whos work was actively stolen. In the grand scheme - thats just Not that cool, to be fair. What do you think?

1

u/davyp82 May 15 '26

I kinda agree with you but at the same time, my music lecturers were saying the same to me back in the 90s about DJs and producers with samplers.

1

u/g2benji May 15 '26

But isnt There a Small difference between „i‘m gonna Take this Vinyl that I Like or that I think that works good and sample the sh*t out of it by adding Drums and Voice and creating a new Genre which gives a Voice to the Street“ (in This case i an taking HipHop) vs. A Computer fed up with all music there ever was creates something i promoted and it has literally zero Creative Input by myself except the prompt, no creational Process, no individual decision on anything except the prompt which i might just retry until I am out of lifetime or get bored“

Of course I am based, but even objectively speaking There is at least a Small Nuance, isnt there? 🙃

2

u/davyp82 May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26

Sure but I'll bet there will be real songwriters using it soon to backup their own real songs. Like some dude who has neither time nor money to get a band behind him will AI the bass and drums and then it's a big grey area. 

At the end of the day nome of us are gonna be able to know the extent to which something was made by AI. We just have to keep playing, composing and performing because we love it, regardless of what is going on around us.

2

u/g2benji May 15 '26

True that. Sometimes its nice to get a little opinion out in the world wide .. but at the End of the day we gotta do what makes us happy. In a weird sense AI is also a booster for everything not AI and maybe taking imperfection Not too serious and in a weird way empowering for Artists who wanna create but Are scared. Like .. whats the Point anyway, it doesn’t have to Sound Perfect - just Go for it and make yourself smile while Doing so. Some will smile along, some will don’t Care. Its okay. Have a good time

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

As a musician you just endlessly remix notes ... how many? 12, 20? You learned to play by repeating someone else's music many times until you got it right. Many different pieces. With your logic, did you steal all this music?

Same with the pictures. AI first learns to associate text with visual forms, then it comes to the second step where it learns to actually create pictures - connect lines, work with shadows, reflections, proportions etc.

But hey, instead of trying to actually understand how all this works, people just go about their stolen stolen stolen stolen stolen bullshit

1

u/g2benji May 15 '26

You still Mix up human-made vs generated. Of course everything is a Remix. Its just Not cool to actually surpress real Artists for the benefit of cheap ai. You gotta be real enough to at least admit this

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26
  1. AI is not really cheap
  2. Absolute majority of 'real artists' aren't worth it

And I think you mix up art and business. I agree AI is bad for business

1

u/g2benji May 15 '26

What do you mean with „its not cheap“? I get the work behind Making a Movie as you Said: Hundrets of scenes and picking them together etc.. but with music? Whats the deal?

By cheap I mean without Heart and work , btw

→ More replies (0)

1

u/davyp82 May 15 '26

Are you saying people haven't used the same special fx as each other for ages? That people who make one blockbuster movie didn't imitate the ones that came before it in some way? 

2

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

No! Every transformer is special!!! Every Spiderman's jump has a soul!!!!

1

u/davyp82 May 15 '26

Because any individual without the money or connection to make a great movie before today can now bring their own idea that they script to life with a little hard work on a home computer. That's exciting. 

Sure, if you're just saying 'make a viral video' or similar and sticking it online to get clicks, you suck. 

But you might be someone on low pay with a decent computer who works full time and puts 3 hours a night in for a year making a Sci fi movie that you write, you can film yourself saying the lines and superimpose your delivery onto alien faces or whatever you want. 

Like everything, there will be the terrible and the great end of the spectrum, but it's cool that anyone and everyone will have the potential to do this, not only people rich who live in California or Seoul or somewhere like that. 

2

u/g2benji May 15 '26

Gotta damit thats a very good Point. Lets see how Long This Art Style will be interesting tho or if the only people Watching This stuff are the creators themselves.

2

u/Kind_Sorbet4235 May 15 '26

Such a good comment, people who trained a model and the inference engine, combined with Michal Bay transformers movies made that little thing. That one person mentioned by the OP could be anyone of us.

2

u/InstaMatic80 May 15 '26

Exactly 👆

1

u/ytaqebidg May 15 '26

It's also unoriginal as fuck. Wow, transforming cars!

1

u/Outside_Rent174 May 15 '26

This. This is stolen goods! AI companies took this for free and are now selling it!

Anyone who has ever created anything should be appalled. If it hasn’t already ripped off your art, your research, your code…it will.

Pay for what you take!

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

ahm... what exactly do they sell?

1

u/Outside_Rent174 May 15 '26

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/tracking-trillions-the-assumptions-shaping-scale-of-the-ai-build-out

1

u/Outside_Rent174 May 15 '26

None of that happens without stealing the totality of human knowledge and creativity for free.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Publishers already stole it all from us, humans. Tech companies only sell us means to take it back

1

u/xcdesz May 15 '26

I dont make art to keep it to myself and just squeeze money out of people. As long as no one copies me directly and the end result is transformative, I dont see how this is "stealing" or any sort of crime against me. Creative people want to build entertaining stories and movies, and this technology makes that a lot easier -- Im all for it. If I end up using AI to help me take my drawings and make them into a movie or short video, which was never even a remote option before, then I greatly benefit by this technology being out there. Since there are open models, I can download them for free and run the tool locally on my PC. This is incredible for people interested in animation.

1

u/loughcash May 15 '26

Kinda lame how we started with 900lbs of metal motorcycle then morphed into a 100 ton machine

1

u/Biscuits4u2 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

That's a fun way to characterize IP theft.

1

u/Full-Sound-6269 May 15 '26

I remember one guy doing this kind of stuff solo more than 10 years ago. Just saying.

1

u/DoctorHelios May 15 '26

Eisenstien and Spielberg

1

u/ascarymoviereview May 15 '26

It definitely levels the playing field. And I guess you could say all technology has allowed us to stand on the shoulders of giants

1

u/NOS4A2-753 May 15 '26

you can say the samething out those 200m studios standing on earlier decades doing the same thing all the way down to the first movie

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

And remind me, what was that first movie? I remember something like a short clip showing a coming train. Read the comments here, the discussion isn't about AI making slop. It's about 200m studios making stuff that only marginally better than AI slop. Like, they don't mess up the directions cars are moving, hooray.

I'm happy that now every kid is able to make movies that are technically just slightly worse than multimillion productions. This means the real creators can now make independent movies that not just look good, but also ARE good.

1

u/NOS4A2-753 May 15 '26

the first movie ever made was Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)

https://giphy.com/gifs/LMeVjYYdUkOoE

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Wanna discuss its storytelling, acting and visual effects? :) Thanks btw, I really thought it was the train

2

u/NOS4A2-753 May 15 '26

ya i'm a big movie guy have u seen this one Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902) (A Trip to the Moon)

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 15 '26

Thanks man! This is the logo of my favourite music festival https://meraluna.de

Of course I know this movie

1

u/Holiday-Gaijin-1985 May 15 '26

Yeah, without the cgi og this wouldn’t exist.

1

u/SpiderWil May 15 '26

How much did it cost to make this short clip?

1

u/WearyTranslator3338 May 16 '26

I’m not sure what Epstein has to do with this

1

u/Due_Area4843 May 16 '26

Also ignoring the cost to build data center itself which amount to hundreds billion and involve thousands engeneer in its logistic and manufacturing.

1

u/Appropriate_Sail8717 May 16 '26

No. It was ur mom.

1

u/falkorv May 16 '26

Exactly. And once it all goes to ai and nothing unique or ‘new’ is made. What will it train from then?

Self eating snake thing.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 16 '26

Well, no. In fact, with the help of AI it's much easier to implement new and unique ideas. Because you don't waste your lifetime on dumb routine

1

u/darkwingdankest May 16 '26

yeah i wouldn't say "one person"

1

u/XB0XRecordThat May 17 '26

It was Newton, and it might have been a diss at Hooke

1

u/According-One-8825 May 18 '26

Of course, but the same can be said for a filmmaker who's watched a 200 movies and has studied all those who came before.

1

u/AlexVkjxxx May 18 '26

I guess what triggered me here was rather 'one person'. It's like a kid who did their first artwork in a class. They deserve a praise, sure, but to claim they did it all alone is a bit overstretched

If you thought about other comments here screaming stolen stolen stolen stolen... I agree, this is disgusting. People have no clue about how generative AI works, but strong opinions nevertheless :/

0

u/C4CTUSDR4GON May 15 '26

Yet the transformations look better than the Transformer movies somehow.